CNN attempts to censor its competition

CNN’s Oliver Darcy suggests that two CNN competitors, Newsmax and OAN, be “cancelled” for political reasons by their carriers:

“Just a reminder that neither @Verizon, @ATT, nor @comcast have answered any questions about why they beam channels like OAN & Newsmax into millions of homes. Do they have any second thoughts about distributing these channels given their election denialism content? They won’t say.”

I hate to break this to Oliver Darcy: but Verizon, ATT, and Comcast don’t owe him an explanation.

Let us not forget that in the wake of the 2016 election, CNN was a bullhorn purveyor of “election denialism”. The network constantly spouted crackpot theories about mysterious Russian agents swinging the 2016 election for Donald Trump.

No one talked about colluding to remove CNN from the airwaves, though. (Many of us did, however, privately stop watching CNN during the Trump years, as their biases constantly showed.)

This will be the new modus operandi: entrenched, politically connected players like CNN and Twitter will use collusion with likeminded (or coerced) business partners to “cancel” competitors. The Democratic Party will cheerlead and pitch in where necessary.

Notice that Twitter’s free-speech competitor, Parler, was “cancelled” through a collusion among a group of left-leaning tech companies. This happened after conservative Twitter users abandoned Twitter for Parler in large numbers.

And now CNN will attempt the same with Newsmax and OAN. They’ll use the same excuse: “public safety”—the go-to pretext of dictatorships since time immemorial.

There is never a valid “public safety” argument for permanently censoring a news outlet. Or a social media platform, for that matter…much as I dislike social media.

3 months in O’Hare International Airport

I lived in Chicago for 108 days in 1991—from July 15 to October 30. Sort of. I actually lived in the Elk Grove Village area, in the northwest suburbs.

I will openly admit that the Windy City was not my cup of tea. I pretty much hated it, in fact. Over the years, I’ve spent significant time in Sao Paolo, Mexico City, Tokyo, Osaka, Nashville, Dallas, Toronto, and El Paso. There is only one city that makes me physically ill at the mere mention of its name: Chicago. I left Chicago one grey, overcast day almost 30 years ago, and I have rarely gone back. 

With one exception: I have been to O’Hare International Airport  more times than I can count. O’Hare is a common connection point when flying from Cincinnati to Japan and back—something I’ve done many times. 

O’Hare, like most everything else in Chicago, is big, old, crowded, and overpriced. Nothing runs on time or works efficiently. Everyone is either guarded or on the make. The only thing worse than having a long layover in O’Hare is actually living in Chicago.

That’s why I’m baffled that this California man, Aditya Singh, 36, recently spent three months in O’Hare, hiding out. The reason: he was afraid of COVID, apparently.  

I understand fears of COVID in California. (The high taxes alone would be enough to make someone flee the People’s Republic of California.) But if I were to pick an airport to hole up in for three months, I can think of many more pleasant alternatives to O’Hare. Next time, Mr. Singh should consider booking a flight to Nashville or Dallas.

Even the airport here in Cincinnati is more pleasant than O’Hare, and Chicago won’t be waiting for you immediately outside the walls. 


**VENETIAN SPRINGS** A young teacher risks all to save his wife from a ruthless drug lord. 

Preview it on Amazon.

MLK Day, a colorblind America, and Critical Race Theory

Today is Martin Luther King Day. It is a day we should all acknowledge. Martin Luther King  forced mid-twentieth century America to come to terms with the contradictions between our Constitution and the realities of racial segregation. The Jim Crow order of the pre-Civil Rights era was both immoral and incompatible with American values. America is a better country today, for all of us, as a result of Martin Luther King’s efforts.

But this is a new century, with new ideas on the far, radicalized left, like critical race theory (CRT).

Martin Luther King would have rejected critical race theory (CRT). King’s objective was a colorblind society. Reread some key passages from King’s “I Have a Dream” speech:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

“I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.”

MLK’s objective was not to make everything about race and racial grievance, but to move race and history to the background. Each individual should be judged on individual merits, or—as King said—“by the content of their character”.

Critical race theory, a mindset now in vogue in our media, cultural, and academic institutions, is the polar opposite of that. Critical race theory says that race must always be at the forefront of everything.

That is more or less what Bull Connor and the Klansmen said. One thing I’ve long observed: At their extremes, the far left and the far right tend to reach similar conclusions and take similar actions.

Martin Luther King asked us to put aside race and deal with each other only as individuals and fellow human beings. That is why he belongs to all Americans.

The radical Black Lives Matter movement, on the other hand, will never belong to all Americans, just as the Ku Klux Klan will never belong to all Americans.

Biden’s migrant caravan

Words have consequences. The entire world, moreover, listens to the words of American politicians, especially those who are, or might become, the President of the United States.

Joe Biden and the Democrats have vowed to make the US southern border little more than a formality, if even that. This will be a sharp reversal from the policies of the Evil Orange Man of leftwing imagination, who “put kids in cages” and built the malevolent “wall”.

With the Democrats now in control of the government, the floodgates will be open.

If you open the door, they will come. About a week ago I pointed out an inconvenient truth: There are 652 million people in Latin America. That is almost twice the current population of the United States.

Surveys reveal that—with some variation by country—approximately two thirds of Latin America’s population would like to come to the United States. This is not because they are evil, but because Latin America is such an economic, social, and political basket case.

Nevertheless, we simply run out of money if we allow in everyone who wants to come. But this is the Democrats’ plan. They realize that in the short term, at least, every new arrival from a poor country is a new Democratic voter eager for “free stuff”, which Democrats promise in spades.

Lo and behold, a massive migrant caravan—the sort of thing we largely didn’t see during the Trump era—has already formed and begun heading north, toward the US border. You can be sure that this will be the first of many.

This is inconvenient timing for Joe Biden, as it proves his critics right, before he has even taken office. Biden has publicly said,  “Now is not the time” to rush the US border. Wait until he takes office, at least! But the masses of Latin America have been waiting for four long Trumpian years. They’re tired of waiting.

This will result in major turmoil. We will likely see the reemergence of citizen vigilante groups like the Minutemen, who will be determined to do what the government will not. These groups have been dormant during the Trump years, because the Trump administration actually upheld our national sovereignty by controlling our borders.

Well, that is all about to change. You can bet that the Minutemen—or some new iteration of them—will be back.

There will also be overcrowding and crime waves in cities like Phoenix, El Paso, and Houston. It will be interesting to see how all this dovetails with another Democratic Party brainchild: “defund the police”.

BLOOD FLATS: In the badlands of Kentucky, a former marine goes on the run to clear his name and find justice. Preview it on Amazon, or read the first ten chapters here. 

False flag protests: conservatives/Republicans should *not* attend

Stay the f#ck at home on Inauguration Day

As I noted in this space the other day, the Left and the mainstream media want nothing more than a bloody fracas on Inauguration Day that can be blamed on conservatives. This will justify not just the demonization of conservatives in the media, but also private- and public-sector efforts to “cancel” conservatives and Republicans.

And then, of course, there is AOC’s “Ministry of Truth”

More reports are coming in that these “calls for armed protests” you’ve been hearing about in the media are false flags, like the flyer below.

Don’t fall for it; stay home on Inauguration Day

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: The January 6th incursion into the US Capitol was a horrible mistake that took five lives, and gave the left/mainstream media a new narrative: that they must restrict our basic rights in order to prevent an imminent rightwing coup. The January 6th action accomplished nothing for conservatives, the GOP, or President Trump. It was a boneheaded fiasco, straight down the line. 

Likewise, there is nothing to be gained by going to your state capitol on Wednesday, and walking around with a gun in public, looking (and acting) like a jackass. If you do that, you will be playing directly into the mainstream media’s/left’s hands. That is exactly what they want you to do. They want you to have a violent confrontation with the National Guard/police officers who will be on duty.

Don’t be a dupe.  Stay home. Observe Inauguration Day with friends and family, or in prayer and meditation. Watch M*A*S*H and Seinfeld reruns if you’d like. But stay away from those “armed protests”, which are almost certainly not the project of conservatives, but of agitators on the Left. 

Truck envy

On his Twitter profile, Mathew Bond describes himself as a “District of North Vancouver Councillor, Professional Engineer, passionate about next-generation solutions for transportation and cities.” 

He forgot to add, “virtue signaler”. Bond was shocked at the existence of a jacked-up 4-wheel drive truck, which he photographed in order that he might shake his finger at it online.

The photo below seems to have been taken in Canada, where Mathew Bond lives:

“Petromasculinity”? WTF?

Now, for what it’s worth, I will almost certainly never own a truck like that, because, well…it’s just a bit much for my tastes. I drive a Toyota RAV4, which is practically a chick car. 

But any man who uses a term like “petromasculinity” in an unironic manner has issues. In all likelihood, he is trying too hard to demonstrate his “woke” credentials.

And what’s this about “The glorification of violence and domination.”? It’s a freakin’ truck, Mathew. Lighten up. 

Kudos to Jesse Kelly (below), who gave Mr. Bond a much-deserved comeuppance in nine short, simple words.

“Petromasculinity?” Good grief.

That 1980s shoe store device

Back when there were shopping malls—and shopping mall shoe stores—sticking your foot in this thing was a part of the shoe-buying process.

The above photo is courtesy of the 80sThen80sNow fellow. (He has a website, too.)

I wouldn’t say that these shoe store foot-measuring devices are uniquely associated with the 1980s. (They predate the 1980s by decades.) But I haven’t seen one in any retail store for at least 20 years.

PA Lt. Gov. John Fetterman attempts to rewrite the Constitution

In the above video, Pennsylvania’s Democratic Lt. Governor, John Fetterman, announces that dissident claims about the recent election are no longer allowed.

Never mind that Democrats have claimed for 4 years that “Russians” swung the 2016 election to Donald Trump.

The Democratic Party apparatchiks aren’t even pretending anymore. Henceforth, they will decide the boundaries of acceptable speech for the rest of us.

Come and take it, Mr. Fetterman. Come and take it. 

Lauren Boebert is sued for blocking Twitter user

The social media nonsense just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

On one hand, Twitter arbitrarily blocks the President of the United States.

Nothing wrong there!

Twitter arbitrarily suspends the account of Colorado GOP  Representative Lauren Boebert.

No worries!

But when Lauren Boebert blocks the account of Twitter user Bri Buentello, a former Colorado Democratic state representative (and present constituent of Boebert), all hell breaks loose in the form of a lawsuit and a Twitter mob set on Boebert. 

The problem with Twitter privacy controls

Twitter gives every user the right to block other users. Twitter’s policies allow blocking of other users without any notification, reason, or due process, just like you can individually block someone on your Facebook feed without justification or due process. This is one of Twitter’s key privacy control features. 

But Boebert is not a private citizen. She is an elected official. And if she’s speaking on Twitter in her official capacity, then her constituent, Bri Buentello, arguably has a right to access her representative’s tweets—so long as Buentello isn’t being threatening or profanely harassing. (We’ll see what comes out in that regard.)

The problem with Twitter and elected officials

This is one of the myriad problems with Twitter. It is a “free speech” public square…except when Jack Dorsey and his minions decide that it isn’t. Twitter’s privacy and blocking controls were set up with private use in mind…but every elected official, from Donald Trump and Joe Biden on down, now use it for official notifications.

But Twitter isn’t owned or controlled by the government. It’s controlled by Jack Dorsey and 4,600 mostly lunatic employees in San Francisco. 

There is really no reason for any elected official to be on Twitter in an official capacity. (Is anyone going to challenge my assertion that Donald Trump would have been better off without a Twitter account?) Ideally, elected officials would communicate on Internet platforms that are owned and operated by the public, at whatever level of government they represent. Technically, this would not be difficult. This could be done without adding another digit to Joe Biden’s profligate, gazillion-dollar spending plans. 

Then if someone was harassing a state official on the publicly owned platform, the obnoxious citizen could be dealt with through the due process of the law, if applicable. 

But that isn’t possible on Twitter. If you’re a Republican politician and some yahoo is screaming bloody murder at you, your only option is to block them…which really only makes things worse. Ask Lauren Boebert.

But… you already know that Jack Dorsey hates your guts because you’re a Republican. You’ll get no relief from Twitter itself. (Twitter banned Boebert herself only days ago, remember.)

Yeah, Twitter sucks. I know.

I’m a conservative, and I prefer private-sector solutions whenever possible. But social media is neither fish nor fowl. Social media functions as both—and at the same time, as neither

The privatization of public communications on social media channels like Twitter and Facebook is something that we need to rethink, from the ground up. Thus far, it hasn’t exactly gone well. 

AOC feels “not safe” around her Congressional colleagues

Why? Because they’re “white supremacists” don’t cha know…

Listen for it around the 3.5 minute mark in the above interview with Rachel Maddow. When referring to her fellow members of Congress, AOC says:

“People of color are not safe around any individual who, frankly, sympathizes with a white supremacist cause.”

Oh Gawd. Does anyone take this self-important drama queen seriously? Well, AOC is in Congress. That answers your question.

Two points here:

1.) This is the tactic of a new generation

AOC was born in 1989. She would have started school in 1995, or thereabouts. Her generation grew up with the full-court press of “woke” identity politics, with all its attendant victimhood complexes and self-referential navel-gazing. She realizes that references to race, and statements like, “I don’t feel safe!” are kryptonite to rational discourse in our postmodern culture.

2.) She’s a lot smarter than you think she is

As I recently wrote, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a lot smarter than you probably think she is. She knows how to be disarming before a camera, to engage in a sort of passive-aggressive humble-brag.

It’s actually kind of clever, I must admit.

This is her technique. First she’ll claim to be terrified, because—eek!—she’s being threatened. Then she’ll use her claim of being threatened as cover, to come back with larger threats of her own. 

Terrified though she may be of the big, bad Republicans in her midst, she has been quick to follow up with demands for a “truth and reconciliation” process after her party takes power later this week.

This passive-aggressive dodge-and-parry has been her modus operandi for quite some time. 


When she was still candidate Ocasio-Cortez in 2018, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro publicly challenged her to a debate. In return, he offered to donate $10,000 to a charity of her choice, or to her campaign.

An offer she couldn’t refuse. And a debate that she would have had zero chance of winning. Shapiro would have skewered AOC, and she would have lost the 2018 election.

So AOC played the victim. She charged that Ben Shapiro was “catcalling her” when he challenged her to a public debate.

Because everyone knows that when one public political figure challenges another to a debate, or otherwise calls them out, sex is the ultimate objective. By this logic, the 4-year war of words between Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump is really all about unresolved sexual tensions on both sides. 

This was AOC’s non-response:

“Just like catcalling, I don’t owe a response to unsolicited requests from men with bad intentions.

And also like catcalling, for some reason they feel entitled to one.”

AOC  thinks that the world is her Tinder account, maybe? 


To be clear: AOC was under no obligation to debate Shapiro. She would have been well within her rights to flatly refuse, or to simply ignore the request.

The problem was not the failure/refusal to debate, but the disingenuous claim of victimhood. Rather than merely declining the debate, AOC suggested that Ben Shapiro was angling to get in her pants.  

This took the focus off Ocasio-Cortez—then an under-30, untested political neophyte—and put the focus on her critic, Ben Shapiro. 

There was no way that AOC could have answered Shapiro’s attacks on her socialist policy proposals. But if she could convince enough people that Shapiro was sexually harassing her…that would be a game-changer, she figured. 

And she was right, as it turned out. This early incident was indicative of AOC’s clever knack for twisting the truth. No other politician, of either sex, of either party, would have been able to pass off such a pile of mumbo jumbo with a free pass from the media. Even Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris wouldn’t be able to get away with that.

AOC did get away with it, though, because she was already the media’s darling. 

AOC also knows how to weaponize her youth and sexuality, as she did in the above incident. If you doubt that statement, picture any other politician using a similar ploy and getting away with it. 

You can’t.

As I said earlier, AOC knows exactly what she’s doing. 

Twitter: perfectly cool with Chinese government propaganda, though

Last week I reported how the Chinese government, using Twitter, puts a happy spin on its brutal suppression of ethnic minorities, especially the Tibetans and the Uighur people. 

The ladies over at the Victory Girls blog point out that Twitter is well aware of the Chinese government propaganda on their platform.

They have no qualms about any of that. But they banned the account of the President of the United States.

In recent days, Twitter has also purged thousands of less well-known conservative accounts, and a leaked video indicates that Twitter CEO and Head Commissar Jack Dorsey is far from done. 

And they wonder why we don’t trust a word they say…

Loews Hotels cancels Josh Hawley, too

First Simon & Schuster reneged on Hawley’s book contract. Now Loews Hotels has broken a contract with Josh Hawley, too, succumbing to mob politics, and the fear of coordinated mob actions.

Hawley had a February fundraising event scheduled at a Loews Hotels location in Orlando. Then a left-leaning Florida attorney, Daniel Uhlfelder, got wind of it and decided to incite an Internet mob. Uhlfelder turned to the  cesspool known as Twitter. Twitter, as most of us know, breeds Internet mobs like your shower curtain breeds mold.

It didn’t take long. The management at Loews Hotels quickly caved, and declared themselves in breach of their contractual obligations to Hawley.

What to make of all this? Democratic Party politicians and attention-whoring attorneys are going to do what they’re going to do. No mystery there.

Likewise, the publishing industry is mostly inhabited by people who discovered, lo and behold, that there are only so many ways to make a living with a degree in English literature. Publishing industry insiders lean left; and that has been the case for decades.

But what about corporate executives outside of publishing—those in “real” industries?

I speak from experience and direct observation here. What corporate executives most care about, at the end of the day, is making money. They all know that in most cases, mobs and agitators can interfere with business. An occasional controversy may rejuvenate the career of an actor or a rock star. A car company or a restaurant chain, not so much.

As some of you may know, I worked at Toyota (on the corporate side) for about 15 years. During that time, I sat in on numerous meetings regarding various “corporate citizenship” programs. At the end of the day, these initiatives are all about marketing, not substance.

Let me give you a concrete example: corporate diversity sourcing initiatives.

Every company under the sun is now touting its use of minority-owned suppliers. You’re thinking: big companies making purchases from minority-owned, “mom and pop” businesses in the Bronx, or southern Louisiana. Isn’t that nice?

Guess again. What it really means is: A wealthy minority businessperson (usually a businessman) forms a shell company. He agrees to serve as the agent, or distributor, for businesses that aren’t minority-owned.

The larger company does business directly with the shell company owned by the minority businessman (who is already a millionaire, in most cases). The millionaire owner of the shell company takes a healthy cut off the top. The larger company tells consumers and shareholders about the wonders of its minority supplier outreach program!

It’s all a big PR game, essentially. Ditto for corporate responses to leftwing mob actions, like the ones that are tripping up Josh Hawley of late.

Toyota, while I was there, was no den of leftwing communists and anarchists. On the contrary, it was a conservative Japanese company, with American managers from the Midwest, who also leaned conservative.

Toyota, though, had several run-ins with the leftwing mob. In 2001, Jesse Jackson shook Toyota down over a RAV4 ad. Toyota had intended the ad to be “hip”, and appealing to younger, more diverse consumers. Jackson spun the ad as “racist”. This made no sense, as Toyota’s explicit aim was to appeal to minority consumers—not insult them.

Jackson threatened a boycott, and Toyota paid homage (and wrote some large checks) to Jesse Jackson’s shakedown racket, aka the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. The problem went away. It was basically like paying off the mafia.

And Loews Hotels is paying off the mafia, too—the mafia of Daniel Uhlfelder, and whatever mob he is capable of stirring up online. For all we know, the management of Loews Hotels may be conservative by inclination, as well. But they don’t want to remain the object of Daniel Uhlfelder’s venal, self-serving smear campaign.

I understand how corporate executives can be tempted to give in to such pressure. Toyota’s run-in with the money-grubbing Jesse Jackson made the company hyper-cautious for years about anything involving race. For companies that sell to the retail market, the potential downsides of being targeted by the mob are simply too great.

But yielding to the whims of mobs, time and again, has a cumulative cost. This doesn’t just mean Toyota writing checks to Jesse Jackson, or Loews Hotels canceling a contract with Josh Hawley that would have benefited both parties. When leftwing mobs are given carte blanche (as happened over the summer, with the Black Lives Matter riots), rightwing mobs will eventually decide to employ the same tactics. That’s what we discovered on January 6th.

It’s a bad way for a free society to function—or rather, not function.

This will likely be a trend for the foreseeable future, though, especially with the Democrats in control of our government. Conservative speakers and Republican events will be “canceled” at the instigation of howling mobs and unscrupulous agitators like Daniel Uhlfelder. There will be backlashes and counter-backlashes.

Like I said, it’s a bad way for a free society to function.

**At AMAZON: Save on men’s winter gloves

Amazon’s case for banning Parler

I’ve written a lot in recent days about free speech and censorship.

We don’t censor opposing viewpoints here. We address them.

Here is the other side:

Amazon Court Filing Slams Parler For Posts Inciting, Planning “Rape, Torture And Assassination Of Public Officials, Private Citizens”

“AWS reported to Parler, over many weeks, dozens of examples of content that encouraged violence, including calls to hang public officials, kill Black and Jewish people, and shoot police officers in the head … Parler systematically failed to “suspend access” to this content, much less to do so immediately, and demonstrated that it has no effective process in place to ensure future compliance. Parler itself has admitted it has a backlog of 26,000 reports of content that violates its (minimal) community standards that it had not yet reviewed. Parler’s own failures left AWS little choice but to suspend Parler’s account.”


Social media is a cesspool. That’s why I avoid it like the plague…as should you.

I have no doubt that Parler was as much of a cesspool as the rest of them, with the caveat that Parler’s cesspool was more conservative and right-leaning. (FWIW, when I was on Twitter, I saw threats of violence everyday.)

It sounds like Parler was woefully understaffed, which explains the backlog of 26,000 reports.


“Supporters of reluctantly outgoing President Donald Trump laid violent siege to the Capitol building last Wednesday. Five people died. By the end of the week, Twitter had permanently banned Trump’s account and Facebook blocked him indefinitely. Trump supporters turned even more heavily to Parler, which AWS stopped supporting on Monday.”


I’ve repeatedly stated on this blog that I disapprove of all political violence, and encourage everyone, on all sides, to work out their differences peacefully. 

That goes for those who support Trump, and those who oppose him.

My main problem with Amazon here is the company’s lack of consistency. Amazon, going all the way up to Jeff Bezos, offered very vocal support of BLM this past summer, despite the ongoing violence….in which far more than five people died. For several weeks, Amazon went so far as to post a message of support for BLM on its homepage.

From late May through September, our media, government, and corporate elites sent the message: if you believe your cause is just, then the ends justify the means.

This is a dangerous concept, because that always comes down to a certain degree of subjectivity. Many supporters of BLM no doubt believed that their cause was just. So did many diehard Trump supporters who believed (whether rightly or wrongly) that the 2020 election had been stolen.

Amazon can’t tacitly support public rioting when the rioters are associated with BLM, and then suddenly become the corporate champion of law and order when the rioters are Republicans and Trump supporters. You either oppose rioting, or you don’t.

Likewise, two wrongs do not make a right. But over the summer we lowered our standards in regard to the degree of public political violence that we would tolerate. This doubtless gave the January 6 rioters a sense of license. Some of them no doubt figured: if BLM could loot, burn, and break stuff, why couldn’t they?

Amazon makes some valid points in its rebuttal. But where was the company’s abhorrence of public violence and rioting last June?

The small minds of Harvard

As we discussed in a post a few days ago, nothing so hampers a young mind as enrollment at one of our Ivy League institutions, where pointy heads and ideological conformity abound. Your child would likely receive a better education at your local community college in Podunk, Iowa or Cowpen, Indiana.

Here we see yet further proof:

Harvard Students Launch Petition to Revoke Degrees of Trump Supporters in Government

The petition reads, in part:

“Harvard must revoke the degrees of alumni whose incendiary language and subversion of democratic processes–rooted in a history of white supremacist voter suppression–incited the violent insurrection on January 6.”

Blah, blah, blah.

To be clear: I’ve repeatedly expressed my disapproval in this space of the January 6 actions at the US Capitol. It was wrong. It shouldn’t have happened. Those who committed acts of violence and/or vandalism should be punished according to the law.

But the January 6 riot was not a “white supremacist voter suppression” conspiracy. One yahoo with a Confederate flag does not a “white supremacist voter suppression” make.

No one was voting that day in the capitol, anyway. There were no votes to suppress.

An idiot? Yes. A “white supremacist voter suppression”? No. (Look up the word “hyperbole”, kids.)

Nor can we accurately say that President Trump, or anyone else in government, “incited” the riot.

First of all, President Trump didn’t order anyone to riot. Secondly, President Trump has no direct authority over anyone who isn’t in his chain of command, including his supporters.

I’ve been voting Republican since 1988. President Trump has zero direct authority over me. If I decide to run naked down my street, that has nothing to do with President Trump.

Nor would it be an act of “white supremacist voter suppression”. (Though it would shock and disgust all of my neighbors, regardless of their race or ethnicity.)


Punish the rioters. Beef up security at the inauguration next Wednesday. Those are reasonable steps.

And they’re doing that. The FBI is currently pursuing the January 6 rioters as if each one of them were a combination of Osama Bin Laden and Lex Luthor. Meanwhile, Washington DC looks like Pyongyang now, a national capital with no citizens, only security forces.

But these fanatics on the far left—from AOC to the nitwits at Harvard—are going to use this as a pretext for endless bans, purges, and cancellations.

They’re going to get as much mileage from this as they possibly can.

Take the reasonable steps in the aftermath of the riot, as outlined above.

Then move the heck on. Just like you did after the summer-long BLM riots.

Sarah Hoyt on online censorship and Facebook


In the essay (which you should read), Hoyt talks about her recent experiences with Facebook banning and suspending her content (which, I assure you, is quite mild as online discourse goes).

Here’s a sample:

“Even the Soviets turned a blind eye to jokes about the regime, because they knew it was a safety valve.”

Yes, but:

1.) The social justice mob has proven time and again that they have no sense of humor.

2.) To compare Mark Zuckerberg to Yuri Andropov would be a slight to the latter.